The problem with political discussions is that they are almost always meaningless, politics is sports to 99 percent of the country, you could show them a picture of their candidate sucking on a fat tranvestite cock and t hey would say its doctored or something. People just want to root for their team, and for most them thats just whoever their parents voted for or some other stupid reason.

The superdelegates are going to cowtow to the electorate for fear of losing the party's good favor this year. If Obama has the lead in delegates (likely) then the remaining undecided superdelegates will go to him and not Hillary no matter what she or Bill says.

Also, Hillary and Bill saw what going past 5 on the 1 to 11 scale back in South Carolina when she let Bill off the leash. This election has a woman (aggrieved party) vs. a black (aggrieved party). Any whiff of mudslinging gets turned into a perceived slight due to either gender or race between them. It's at a tipping point and Bill found out the hard way when he started to attack Obama and ended up getting the scorn of many.

Finally, everyone is starting to recognize that Obama can beat McCain. Hillary can't. That is what's important now.

Kaz, as always you are right. Perhaps that honorary degree is coming in handy. Perhaps more people caught on to the realization that Obama is the dude when it comes to beating any republican nominee. Perhaps Obama's last few victories will get the mindset solidified. Or maybe not. I am still voting for Nader- wait, where did he go?

My wife has never voted in her life. She is going to register if Obama wins the nomination to vote for him. My wife is far more conservative than liberal. I think there are millions like her that will vote for Obama, or won't vote at all. The guy is inspiring, and I think we need that in the White House. No matter who gets elected, party politics and special interests will negate their good intentions.

/Finally, everyone is starting to recognize that Obama can beat McCain/

and

/Perhaps more people caught on to the realization that Obama is the dude when it comes to beating any republican nominee/

Heh. And the Giants were the "B-team from the NFC". The GOP still holds an edge in the electoral college. Obama may win the popular vote, but still go down. Complaining about the electoral college is like an mfy fan complaining that the mfy scored more runs than the Sox in the 2004 ALCS. So what? The rules of the game are the rules of the game until someone changes them, at which time both sides would adjust their strategy accordingly (but it ain't happening anytime soon).

Andy Pettite has a wife? And she is throwing Roger under the bus. Suh-weet.

As for the POTUS, that Obock Barama dude sure can wind a stem.

It's not my original thought, but agree with what was said last night:

Do not. REPEAT. Do not be the guy speaking after OB on election night.

John [Did I mention I was a POW?] McCain looked like he was speaking to the Royal Order of Buffaloes meeting at Denny's in Naff, Virginia. Oh, and if you want to appeal to someone under, say 68, you might not want to have someone who hit Elizabeth Taylor 35 years ago standing next to you like a dusty pair of underpants.

During this voting season, I had the oppurtunity to vote for BO, and I was pleased to do so. The guy is uplifting.

Obama is one of the most liberal politicians out there. If you're a moveon liberal, you'll be very pleased. If you are a conservative and vote for him, say good night to any "principles" you might have had. Uplifting and hopeful is one thing but the meat and potatoes is where the rubber meets the road. (Alright, enough metaphors)

Steve in MD, why did you have to bring up the electoral college. The ugly, red headed step child of the political machine. I prefer to stick my head in the sand and think that my vote really counts. too bad I am still voting for Nader. BTW, anyone seen him lately?

The biggest reason I can't vote for Barack, besides having the most liberal voting record for any Senator in 2007, is the middle name. Hussein--my 30-year serving Navy father would gut me in front of the family at Thanksgiving.

Bob:Billary is/are ruthless, nasty people who will do anything to win. Either could take over for Bellichick and do quite well.

Yes, but even Belichick lost when it mattered most...just saying.

Steve in MD:The GOP still holds an edge in the electoral college. Obama may win the popular vote, but still go down.

You're living in the past 8 years. Democrats are receiving 2-to-1 votes against Republicans...in normally heavily Republican states! Obama is easily carrying states in the Heartland and South, while McCain is carrying Blue States and losing to Mitt or Huckabee in previous Republican strongholds. It's not just the national popular vote where surveys show Obama winning over McCain, but also the state polling...even in states where McCain should be able to hold sway.

lc:Do not. REPEAT. Do not be the guy speaking after OB on election night.

Did you see NBC cut away from McCain in the middle of his Super Tuesday speech because Obama had walked up on stage to prepare for his speech? Hahaha. It won't behoove you to speak after OR before OB is ready to go. :)

That is irrelevant. Democrats are more excited about their primary races, but there's no reason to think that Republican enthusiasm won't return come November (ESPECIALLY if it is Hillary; though, even if it is Obama, there's a great chance people will come out in large numbers to reject his leftwing agenda).

It's not just the national popular vote where surveys show Obama winning over McCain, but also the state polling...even in states where McCain should be able to hold sway.

Yes, but those polls are meaningless because Obama's actual policies have barely been looked at by most people. All most people know is "universal health care," and they don't even really understand the full, and nasty, ramifications of that.

Before the election is over, if, they will. And that is his biggest problem.

Sorry, pudge. A Schilling endorsement is worth the less than the sock it's written on.

What I'm most curious about is what will happen to all of the serious conservatives when McCain wins the nomination. Are the Christian conservatives really going to work the way they did in '00 and '04 for him when many don't seem to care for him all that much?

And Doug is an idiot. Why would Hilliary's machine only be turned to 3 at this point? What's she waiting for? It would seem as though you turn it to 11 a couple weeks before Super Tuesday. Does Doug realize that's come and gone?

And what Swift Boat did Doug ride in on? He seems to be projecting his own party's actions onto the Clintons.

Politically, I don't know what's what anymore. Massachusetts electing Romney? What? The country electing W not once but twice? What? I give up on this show, frankly. I mean, I do care and I do vote routinely but this is a seriously f***cked up process and it gives me a headache. I prefer to read political history as opposed to pay attention to any of this CNN-driven, Southern evangelical-kowtowing nonsense.

pudge:there's no reason to think that Republican enthusiasm won't return come November (ESPECIALLY if it is Hillary; though, even if it is Obama, there's a great chance people will come out in large numbers to reject his leftwing agenda).

From this article today: To hear conservative bloggers and radio talk show hosts tell it, McCain is a dangerous RINO (Republican In Name Only) willing to sell out Republican principles for political expedience. Day after day, callers to talk radio say McCain is so unpalatable that they will either sit out the elections or vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee.

How widespread are such sentiments? According to a straw poll taken at last week's Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC), an annual event which drew more than 6,000 activists from around the country, 10 percent of the 1,558 polled will not vote in the November elections and 19 percent will vote for someone else.

Does anyone think that Hilliary's 8-years in the White House is an advantage? Wouldn't you choose somebody with a bit of a clue of the workings of the executive branch?

Also what about having Bill travel the world and help repair all the relationships that have been destroyed over the last 8-years? Isn't that important? Or is the USA going to go it alone from here on out? That's been working out really well.

The whole electoral college/popular vote issue was hotly debated at the Constitutional Convention. Who knows how the whole election process would have evolved if the vote had swung the other way.

Obama doesn't have a universal health care plan. He has a plan to subsidize insurance for low income folks, while leaving you free to go through life uninsured if that is what you want to do. There is quite a bit of free market left in his plan. Hillary Care is much more authoritarian in nature in that it will require everybody to have insurance. Neither plan is particularly good as they ignore the fundamental problem that it shouldn't cost $150 for a 5 minute appointment with the nurse in which you never actually see the Doc. However, since some sort of federal action on health care is a political inevitability, Obama's plan ain't that bad.

Anyway, voting on policy positions has never done me any good. No president in my lifetime has actually followed through. Remember, Bush was going to the compassionate conservative with a sensible foreign policy. We all see how that worked out.

So I'm voting on honor and integrity. Obama's ability to inspire people has the potential to set in motion some things that will clean up some of the mess in Washington. He probably can't pull it off, but some hope is better than no hope at all. I don't agree with a lot of the policy positions of Obama or McCain, however I see them both as honorable people that will be a huge improvement over the current administration. From that POV, I'm not going to very upset if we end up with President McCain.

Ryan: McCain has long been a strong conservative. He breaks with many conservatives on a few issues, but he is essentially conservative, and regarding Christian conservatives, on their one most important issue -- abortion -- McCain has a very good record.

As to Hillary ... heh. The Clintons are, bar none, the dirtiest politicians we've seen since LBJ. Please. It's hilarious to me that so many people were feigning shock at some of the things the Clintons said about Obama. That is what they ALWAYS do. If Karl Rove were a Democrat, he'd be working for the Clintons ... well maybe not, I don't know if he is "up" to their "standards."

Kaz: yes, many conservatives say that about McCain. Won't matter come general election time. (In fact, McCain is much more conservative than our current President, on almost much every issue.) They say they won't vote, but they will. If you want to believe they won't, however, don't let little ol' me stop you ...

The next POTUS will likely appoint 3 supreme court justices, and will likely have a Democrat-controlled Senate to approve the nominations - once that sinks in, the social conservatives will vote McCain big time.

Regarding the electoral college, you need only look at the debate over last year's changes to the Insurrection Act to see how strongly the States feel about thier sovreign rights. And that fight was led by a democrat from Vermont! The electoral college is here to stay.

pudge: while the National Journal rated Obama the most liberal senator, they point out that McCain did not vote enough in 2007 to draw a ranking. They gave him a score of 59 on social votes, which makes him about the 170th most conservative law maker. Not very conservative.

On abortion: he supported the National Right to Life positions 75% in '05-'06, 82% in '03-'04, 33% in '01-'02, and 66% in '99-'00. That's middling support: a C, a B-, an F, and a D.

The John Birch Society Conservative Index scored him at 38 for 2006. Other scores from other groups are up and down the scale, from 40s to 80s. Liberal groups most often rate him in the 40s.

You want to call that a "strong conservative," you're welcome to it. I'd call it solidly middle of the road with a slight lean to the right.

//Interfering with people's private lives, dishing out corporate welfare, spying on your own citizens, and destroying the environment?//

Griffin, as a true independent, I would say that the first two of these are Democrat strongholds, while the last two belong to Republicans. Although I trust Billary will take number 3 and make it her/their own as well.

birthofasoxfan97: you would rather they would kowtow to YOU, obviously, but from where I sit, that wouldn't be much of an improvement.

COD: call it what you want, it is a terrible idea. It will bankrupt us, we will lose our freedoms, and it will eventually become a universal plan whether it is now, or not. But you and I do agree on the basic point: it is not the lack of insurance that is the problem, it is the high COSTS. And Obama's plan does not address that, and neither does Hillary's.

Federal action is perhaps inevitable, but it should be action that moves toward DEREGULATION, because that is how costs go down, and all Obama's plan does is INCREASE regulation.

As to Bush and compassionate conservatism: are you serious? We got nothing BUT compassionate conservatism from Bush. Massive increases in spending on Medicare, education, AIDS, and more.

Ryan: look at McCain's ratings overall, for his career, issue by issue. On many issues important to conservatives, he is at or near the top, like on pork, government waste, conservative judges, abortion, and so on. On others, he is way down near the bottom, like on immigration and embryonic stem cells.

And that is why he gets relatively low ratings from NRLB. Actual abortion votes, he is right at the top, but on other related "life" issues like stem cells, not so much.

And these ratings systems often tend to overemphasize certain issues. There was far more action on stem cells in 01-02 than on abortion, so he gets a much lower rating.

louclinton: sorry man, but there ARE NO MANACLES ON STEM CELL RESEARCH. Anyone can research anything they wish to. There's simply no *government funding* of *embryonic* stem cell research on *new lines.* If you want to do *embryonic* stem cell research on *new lines,* fund it in some other way.

No offense, but that kind of talk is what marginalizes the left: pretending that if government isn't doing it, then it isn't being done, or can't be done, or isn't being done as it should.

MattFoley: first, no, McCain never pledged to run for only one term. Second, you have it backward: someone running for only one term can get MORE done because he doesn't worry about trying to get re-elected.

And third, no, he never said he wants us in Iraq for 100 years. Never happened. What he said is that it doesn't matter to most Americans if we are. We've been in Germany for 60 years, and how many Americans care? Maybe you do, and that's fine, but most people don't. Most Germans don't care either.

No smoking (or tax it until there's none), no trans-fats, no gambling (unless the state needs money and the gov wants to raise the budget), no mention of any religion in any context outside of campaigning in a Baptist church, no spanking, no health care options other than the government's, no alternatives to a dying Social Security System, no alternatives other than a dying public school system...

pudge: there ARE NO MANACLES ON STEM CELL RESEARCH. Anyone can research anything they wish to. There's simply no *government funding* of *embryonic* stem cell research on *new lines.* If you want to do *embryonic* stem cell research on *new lines,* fund it in some other way.

pretending that if government isn't doing it, then it isn't being done, or can't be done, or isn't being done as it should.

As someone in the field, I'd like to point out that government-sponsorship of research in this area is critical. New cell lines are necessary to satisfy problems with the currently available cell lines but can not be federally funded (the primary source for this type of research, it's not close enough to a potential therapy for industrial involvement).

So, yes, if the government isn't doing it, it isn't being done, can't be done, and definitely isn't being done as it should.

Did anyone else notice that all of the R's seemed to be on the side of The Rocket while the D's sided with McNamee?
Congressman Davis really should've crawled out of Clemens' ass for a little while during the proceedings...

//birthofasoxfan97: you would rather they would kowtow to YOU, obviously, but from where I sit, that wouldn't be much of an improvement.//

Pudge - Absolutley not - you are amazingly off the mark. I'd rather someone stand up who has some well-thought out principles and sticks by them, rather than shifting any which way the votes blow, which as best I can tell both dems and reps do. Ron Paul is so far the only one who sort of seems to do that and I admire the steadfast approach. It's too bad even he has gone toward picking a more vote friendly side, when he should be running Libertarian. And I say this as someone who has a major problem with the gun society and an anti-choice environment, but still...

The point is nobody can get anything worthwhile done in this environment. The idea that any one person or group has all of the correct ideas and approaches is divisive and silly. And the manic way some people defend their questionable view points is also divisive and silly.

Kaz: As someone in the field, I'd like to point out that government-sponsorship of research in this area is critical.

Nope. You're wrong, Kaz. As someone in the field of government, I point out that the only reason it is "critical" is because we have collectively become accustomed to not doing any significant amount of actual work to get money we want, and instead just rely on government to do it if a company won't.

Start a charity. Do some fundraising. The money exists, if government doesn't do it. It's just a lot harder that way: it's easier to take money from me than to get it for yourself.

Before it happened, many people thought that we couldn't have space travel without government. It can happen, if you get enough people to want it to happen, who work at it.

h.b.: As an "I" (though surely some R's and D's must feel the same), what the fuck is Congress doing wasting time on Clemens in the first place.

h.b.: why did they waste time on the LAST hearings, with Schill and McGwire? Why is Specter wasting time on the Belichick deal?

Well, we know that Specter (from PA), who specifically referenced the 2004 playoffs where the Patriots beat the two PA teams in the two championship games, is pandering to his voters.

Same thing with the baseball steroids crap. It's all pandering.

And it's crap like this that really doesn't have me too enthused for "solutions" to any problem (be it the environment, health care, stem cells, etc) coming out of Washington.

Hells yeah. Exactly. I have a feeling you'd be a Republican if the GOP wasn't filled with a bunch of corrupt assholes in DC. :-)

pudge: ...not doing any significant amount of actual work to get money we want, and instead just rely on government to do it if a company won't. Start a charity.

Please don't act as if I don't know my ass from my elbow on how to fund research. The government's money doesn't come with many strings attached and without any biased intentions other than quality research in the pursuit of good science. You can't say the same for private or charity funding and therein lies a huge problem for researchers. Universities don't accept money that they can't make demands upon regarding intellectual property or data copyright. Researchers are constantly scrutinized for what biases may be present due to whose money is justifying their research. Private companies and charities want to see their own agendas furthered by their investments, which runs antithetical to good science (read the 2005 study on funding bias in the journal Nature if you don't believe me). Public funding means that the results of the research are available to the benefit of everyone. Private money frequently comes with attachments to protect the data for the company funding the research and to the benefit of only the company. Even charities are known to attach similar restrictions in the hope of parlaying their property into further funding but at the loss of the entire academic community. Charities and industries often only fuel funding for popular topics...many times in areas that are already rife with funding opportunities or areas where research has shown little development or improvement to the problem being investigated. Whereas government dollars are often spent in ways that best cover a wider range of important and often novel exploratory topics that may lead to innovation where the higher risk turns industry and charity dollars away.

Also, on a final note, you loosely treat government research dollars as if they are a dole from the government to researchers ("not doing any significant amount of actual work to get money"). That alone tells me you must not understand the granting process. Most researchers who'd rather be doing the work they were funded to do are instead forced to continually submit grant application after application for government money and 5-10% of all applications received are ever funded per each granting period. So, don't characterize publicly funded researchers as lazy and all too eager to live off of the government. Neither characterization is fair or accurate.

PS - I'd gladly give you back all of your money that went to research since you started paying taxes, if you in turn agree to never benefit from the science that resulted.

"Since the characters opened the political discussion door and left it ajar, consider today a freebie with regard to political discussion in the comments, if you wish."
Please promise this is the last time....please!
Opinions & Assholes..you all know the rest.

I know this will brand me as a mouth breather, but, personally, I'm not ready to concede that human beings in early stages of development should be destroyed for research. I'm just not. And I'm not ready for the government (and my tax dollars) to make that decision for me.

What this race was missing was some good down-home Boston pessimism! I'm gonna avoid using this as a political forum and just leave you with the idea that Hillary Clinton might just be the metaphorical Yankees and Barack Obama might just be the metaphorical Red Sox. Or Microsoft, and Google. Or something. Oh, nevahmind.

Please don't act as if I don't know my ass from my elbow on how to fund research.

Then please don't feed me bullshit about how the only way to do it is through government.

Deal?

The rest of what you said is, literally, irrelevant. Some of the points are good, some are not, but NONE of them back up your claim that government money is required. You are only making the case that, to you, government money is PREFERRED.

Further, none of your points work around the fact that unless scientific research is in support of one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution Article I, Section 8 that it is in violation of the Tenth Amendment, and therefore unconstitutional. But that's another discussion.

Also, on a final note, you loosely treat government research dollars as if they are a dole from the government to researchers ("not doing any significant amount of actual work to get money"). That alone tells me you must not understand the granting process.

Nope. I know the granting process takes a ton of work. I also know that it is far MORE work to perpetually raise funds through private donors (unless you get lucky and find a wealthy benefactor).

PS - I'd gladly give you back all of your money that went to research since you started paying taxes, if you in turn agree to never benefit from the science that resulted.

This isn't about me. I am fine. This is about liberty for all. If this were just about me, I'd just protect what I have as best I could and hide in a bunker until it all falls apart. I do this because I care about society as a whole, including my own posterity.

Also, I fully agree with h.b. regarding embryos, and I am glad to see so much research out there that doesn't require embryos.

But it's okay that they are instead thawed out and incinerated, h.b.? Just curious. I know people want to preserve life, even in its most undeveloped form...but the number of incinerated blastocysts is so great compared to the number that would be used for science, it's somewhat confusing to focus solely on the science purposes if preservation of all life is the goal. All current cell lines were derived from unused in-vitro fertilized blastocysts. They would have been thrown away if not used for medical science.

Kaz, re: in vitro, yes, but many of us here would be opposed to government-funded in vitro fertilization procedures, too, for similar reasons.

And more to the point: there is something different about using something to help create life, and using it to conduct scientific experiments. And until we can reach some sort of consensus as a people on what the meaning of it all is, it is imprudent to use government resources for it (which I would oppose anyway, of course, but that's beside the point here).

And what really ticks me off is when scientists try to dictate the ethics to us, as if they have a greater understanding -- or worse, greater standing -- on the ethical issues. Not that you are doing that, but many do, and most normal people have very strong negative reactions to such things.

Kaz: nope. Read up on your Madison. The phrase "general welfare" in section 8 is a preamble of sorts, describing the powers to follow, and is not itself a blanket authorization of power.

Under your interpretation, the "necessary and proper" clause is entirely superfluous, and the Tenth Amendment has no meaning. Or, as Madison wrote:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare. ... I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America ..."

And yes, our government HAS been so subverted, many times over. Some of us still try, for the liberty of all, to restore as much as possible.

pudge: how small would you actually want government to be? a narrow interpretation of article I, section 8 would severely limit the powers of Congress. is that really possible at this point in time when our national budget is in the trillions? doesn't seem like Madison's approach is too feasible today

We have a republican democracy, which means that the majority can get anything it wants to ... subject to the higher laws that protect the rights of minorities.

If you want to try to change the Tenth Amendment, we can discuss it, but until we do, we can't just ignore it, because that is, literally, a slippery slope. Respect for the Constitution is all that protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, as per Federalist 10. We are a nation of laws, not of men.

Now, I would argue that we should NOT change the Tenth Amendment, but it's a waste of time to get to that argument if we can't even agree whether we should follow the Bill of Rights in the first place.

Kaz: I fail to see how citing the fact that FDR violated the Constitution helps your case.

It's very simple: there is no doubt whatsoever what the intent of the Constitution is on this point. Social Security, to take one example, is clearly unconstitutional.

That doesn't mean that a court would rule against it, because the courts -- especially the Supreme Court -- view stability as extremely important, and removing something like Social Security would plunge us into chaos. But that the Supreme Court won't remove it doesn't mean that our elected officials no longer have an obligation to follow the Constitution.

Without following the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, none of us have any rights. And that is what you are arguing for. So don't come crying to me about wiretapping or citizen enemy combatants being held without trials -- violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments -- if you won't also care about violations of the Tenth Amendment.

But whatever, it's all good, and the day is almost over. This was a fun diversion from that stupid steroids bullshit. In fact, Kaz, I think we did more to further effective government than did anyone in the steroids hearing. :-)

I'm always the guy that comments on strip at midnight. Maybe that's a good thing.

Anyway, this election has been incredibly disappointing. I was a big Kucinich supporter. He drops out. Then I change to Edwards. He drops out. Im voting for Obama come the primary, but only because he has a better chance at beating McCain. Other than the dick/vagina and the color of their skin, I cant tell the difference between Obama and Hillary.

In light of your failure to nominate competent candidates for
President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give
notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical
duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except
Kansas , which she does not fancy). Your new prime minister, Gordon
Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for
further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. (A
questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of
you noticed).

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following
rules are introduced with immediate effect:

* The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and
'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without
skipping half the letters, and the suffix-ize will be replaced by the
suffix-ise.

* Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to
acceptable levels. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed
with filler noises such as 'like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable
and inefficient form of communication.

* There is no such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know
on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take
account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize.
You will relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen.

* July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

* You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns,
lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and
therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns
should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort
things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then
you're not grown up enough to handle a gun. Therefore, you will no
longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a
vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a
vegetable peeler in public.

* All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for
your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand
what we mean.

* All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will
start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time,
you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of
conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you
understand the British sense of humour.

* The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been
calling gasoline) -- roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.

* You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French
fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling
potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut,
fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

* The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually
beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred
to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will
be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable as
they are pound for pound the greatest sporting Nation on earth and it
can only be due to the beer. They are also part of British
Commonwealth -- see what it did for them. American brands will be
referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold
without risk of further confusion.

* Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as
good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to
play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English
dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to
having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

* You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind
of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough
will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities
to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every
twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of
nancies). Don't try Rugby -- the South Africans and Kiwis will
thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.

* Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to
host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played
outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a
world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will
learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to
take the sting out of their deliveries.

* An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's
Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all
monies due (backdated to 1776).

* Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups, never
mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries
in season.

God save the Queen!

But hey - at least you get to elect your leaders, we had ours foisted upon us by his predecessor - thanks Tony!

Call us incompetent if you will, but you could take control of our army and leave us only with a handful of muskets and we'd still kick your ass.

Now, on to your demands:

* We will put 'u' in words if you pronounce the letter 'r'

* Don't even get me started on weak and repetitive vocabulary, you "bloody" fool

* July 4th will continue to be a holiday, except from now on, all fireworks will be required to have a UK flag on them, that will be torn to pieces upon detonation

* See above regarding guns

* When you can make a half-decent British car, you can complain about American cars; until then, see above regarding guns

* While you may not find favour (that was a gesture of goodwill) with U.S. English, it is disappointing that you would disregard English measurements; however, if at any time your own country uses the metric system exclusively, then we can consider the same here

* If you want cheaper petroul (is that correct?) then do as we do: find your own sources of it

* Vinegar is the real reason for the British sense of humor (argh! I mean humour!)

* Beer is for pussies anyway

* We will cast English actors in films as good guys, but only if we are allowed to STOP casting English actors as figures of trustworthy authority in television and radio advertisements

* We can't stop playing American football, as it is essentially a war games simulation, and allows us to get our aggression out; imagine how many wars we'd be in today if we didn't have football as an outlet for that aggression (and incidentally, "soccer" is an English word; not that you said we should stop using it, but your countrymen should stop telling us to stop using it)

Ryan: no, you misunderstand. There are two types of slippery slope in argument: an actual slippery slope where one bad argument leads to another, and one where it is STATED that one bad argument leads to another, but it doesn't necessarily do so.

The latter is the slippery slope fallacy, but the existence of such a type of fallacy does not mean that there is no such thing as a true slippery slope argument, where one argument literally leads to another.

This is, of course, what I was referring to. The word "argument" was implied when I wrote "slippery slope."

Oh, and UKsoxfan? You will stop paying some hideous bitch and her inbred offspring gazzilions of pounds/euros (and providing free castle-housing and luxury transportation) for their invaluable service of having won some perverted sperm lottery.

What the hell is up with that shit, anyway? Tradition's one thing, but when it's my money paying for the tradition, I'd abolish that monarchy faster than you can say "Slappy McBlueLips."

Hey Bob. I am right there with you on the monarchy thing, though I draw the line at comparing HM with A-Rod. Treason I tell you, treason!!

Sadly though, the tourism trade probably benefits from all the American tourists who - even a $2 to the pound (get that, even our currency is in imperial measures!!) - flock to London, many to see Buck House and the whole royalty thing. Again - your fault!!!

(After all, if your country is going to be led by buffoons, better they should inherit their jobs rather than be elected to them, as there is no culpability on the part of the average citizen...ah, uh, excuse me..."subject", for buffoons born into the job...)

if in fact, your country was not, within a few years, about to become an Islamic republic under Sharia law. (As per the Archbishop of Cantebury...and don't get me started about what a asshat he is.)

If I may lapse into Modern American Internet Standard Received for a moment: what up wit dat, homey?

The biggest reason I can't vote for Barack, besides having the most liberal voting record for any Senator in 2007, is the middle name.
Funny how people trample on the word liberal. I find liberal policies, in general, to be refreshing, decent, and more "religeous" if you will, and I'm NOT a Christian, just someone who doesn't understand the antagonism towards caring for those less fortunate. I believe some guy named Jesus said "in as much as you do unto these the least of my brethren", etc. Sure, there is no cure-all. We all know that. We're not going to "change the world" in 4, 8 or even 20 years. But things will never change if we don't start to move that direction. And anyone who doesn't think things need to change is just holding his head up his ass.
All the talk about the constitution, B of R, etc. is almost irrelevant. I'm not downplaying those documents' importance in our history, but let's face it - this is a different world we live in. And the fact is, we have established a ruling elite in this country just like the one we fought to free ourselves from and they have bent the rules to their advantage, and only start railing about tampering with those rules when it threatens their own stranglehold on the process.
Forget what party you're from or support, the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Kerrys, the Walkers, they all might as well be Lords, Barons, Dukes, and Earls. People complain about the cost they have to bear for the entitlement programs when the tax loopholes built into the system by those that benefit from them cost more than enough to fund every one of those programs and more.
Are there people that take unfair advantage of those programs - of course. There will always be people who are just lazy and looking for a free ride. People have to realize though, there are just as many of those types getting their free ride in the upper income world as there are in the welfare lines.
There are people taking advantage of the military bid process and getting filthy rich off of it, but I don't hear any conservatives yelling to dismantle the Pentagon.
And as for the middle name, that's just silly and childish.
I guess you don't have any friends named George, right. After all, it was a George that tried to prevent our country from even existing, so they must all..... wait..... wasn't there some guy named Washington, too

Funny how people trample on the word liberal. I find liberal policies, in general, to be refreshing, decent, and more "religeous" if you will, and I'm NOT a Christian, just someone who doesn't understand the antagonism towards caring for those less fortunate.

No, you have it all wrong. It is a complete misrepresentation to say those of us on the right who believe in smaller, non-socialist, government have ANY antagonism toward caring for those less fortunate. We just don't think this should be done through the force of governmnent.

Anti-socialist French philosopher Frederic Bastiat wrote about 150 years ago:

Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."

In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.

Charity is an act of giving of oneself for the sake of another. There is no such thing as forced charity.

To say that it is "Christian" to apply force to anyone else to get them to do what you think is right is completely backward: for Christians, doing right must come from within, because it is the heart that matters more than even the deeds. If your heart is right, it will produce good deeds, but good deeds without the right heart are worthless.

I believe some guy named Jesus said "in as much as you do unto these the least of my brethren", etc.

Exactly. He didn't say "inasmuch as you ask government to force everyone else to do it to one of the least of these my brothers," he said, "inasmuch as YOU did it to one of the least of these my brothers."

Sure, there is no cure-all. We all know that. We're not going to "change the world" in 4, 8 or even 20 years. But things will never change if we don't start to move that direction. And anyone who doesn't think things need to change is just holding his head up his ass.

Yes, we need change. As Michael Jackson said, look at the man in the mirror.

Not that I like Michael Jackson.

All the talk about the constitution, B of R, etc. is almost irrelevant. I'm not downplaying those documents' importance in our history, but let's face it - this is a different world we live in.

No. It is not irrelevant at all. If you do not respect my Tenth Amendment rights, you do not respect ANY of my legal rights, and in such a society, ALL minority rights cease to exist. You cannot have a healthy respect for First or Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights without respect for Tenth Amendment rights, because it is all built on the exact same foundation.